Re George Jackson

Where an appellant has been convicted after challenging a restraint and disclosure order, the Court of Appeal may decline to determine arguments that have become artificial or academic. A general fairness challenge to disclosure in confiscation proceedings may be raised before the Crown Court when those proceedings are heard. The court should consider the restraint order as a whole rather than isolate one provision. A conviction may support the justification for maintaining the order.

The appellant appealed against the refusal of Mr Beatson QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, to remove a disclosure requirement from a restraint order made under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The original challenge relied on the privilege against self-incrimination and article 6.2 of the Convention.

While the appeal was pending, the appellant pleaded guilty to seven counts involving the retention of criminal proceeds. He abandoned the original grounds and pursued only a general fairness argument concerning the possible use of disclosure in confiscation proceedings. The central issue was whether that remaining argument should be determined on the appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The challenge based on privilege against self-incrimination was abandoned following the appellant’s guilty pleas.
2. It was no longer proper to determine the lawfulness of the disclosure requirement after conviction. The order had originally been made when the presumption of innocence operated in the appellant’s favour. The conviction tended, at least, to demonstrate justification for the order and its continuation.
3. The general fairness argument under article 6.1 was not determined. Any valid objection concerning the use or misuse of disclosure in confiscation proceedings could be advanced before the Crown Court in those proceedings, which provided a proper and fair opportunity to raise relevant contentions. The court noted the appellant’s reliance on Phillips, particularly the doubts expressed at paragraph 46, but did not decide whether those doubts survived the House of Lords’ analysis in Revzi v Benjafield.
4. The remaining ground could only be considered on a basis not argued below and concerned one part of an order which should sensibly be considered as a whole. In those circumstances, there was nothing which the Court of Appeal could properly consider.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal dismissed.
• High Court: Mr Beatson QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, refused to vary the restraint and disclosure order by deleting paragraph 3.